User talk:Waldsen/Sandbox
It might have been easier just to add the template as a cell at the bottom of the template's table. Chadlupkes 04:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC) :Maybe, although I'm hoping to extract a new div class=infobox out of these experiments. The idea would be a common width and distance-from-right-border for all templates that we place on the right. What do you think? -- Waldsen 04:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Amendment proposal for CatP Hi Lou. Shall we try and fix CatP? I also think it's very far from acceptable... --ШΔLÐSΣИ 02:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC) :What is the policy in the meantime? Lou franklin 02:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC) ::In the meantime, the official policy is the one that was voted on. I have no power to overturn a completely fair vote. --ШΔLÐSΣИ 02:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC) :::Then reinsert the categories that were removed and ban the user who removed them. Lou franklin 02:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC) ::::The "user who removed them" happens to be an admin. I will respect his decision. Let's focus, please. ::::Article 1. On Campaigns Wikia, a category is a reference tool, intended to aid in navigation and to link similar articles together. ::::I pretty much agree with this one. Anything you would like to add? --ШΔLÐSΣИ 02:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC) :::::If the user was an admin he should have known better. If I can't add POV categories to that article then nobody else should be allowed to either. Lou franklin 03:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC) ::::::This is a conversation you should be having with Jim. Anyway, nobody else has added categories at all, let alone POV ones (recently). I honestly beg you to see that you exaggerated. Are you going to help me or not? --ШΔLÐSΣИ 03:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC) :::::::I would be glad to help. This is pretty much the same policy that we have been debating over the last month, so I suspect you know where I stand on it. :::::::More importantly, the article says "until a valid decision can be reached, all categories have been removed. Please do not replace them until a proper choice has been made." There are two choices: either everybody is prevented from adding new categories to the article, or everybody is allowed to add new categories to the article. If new categories are allowed, then my categories need to be reinserted. If new categories are not allowed until we work this out, then we can proceed. :::::::It is obviously not fair to allow everybody to add new categories except for conservatives. Lou franklin 03:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC) ::::::Well, I think your talking about SSM. As far as I know, nothing has changed there. No categories on those articles until another vote is made. That was one of the reasons your actions were dealt with so swiftly. --ШΔLÐSΣИ 03:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC) ::::::Now we have that settled, take a look: ::::::Article 5. The presence of an article in a category does not imply an endorsement of the applicability of that category to its subject. ::::::but only as a means to connect a page with other pages dealing with the same or similar subjects. ::::::I like this article. With a bit of work, I want it to state that in the event of SSM actually having the cat:civil rights or cat:actions that please satan, it will not be considered an endorsement by Campaigns Wikia. Just an aberration. Agree? --ШΔLÐSΣИ 03:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC) :::::Not really. A good policy wouldn't allow either category. :::::Can we slap a "please do not add categories to this page" message on the article until an updated policy is agreed upon? Lou franklin 03:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC) ::::Sure... ::::Anyway, I agree that a good policy would allow either... we'll get back to that. ::::Article 2. Articles should not be placed into a category and one of its subcategories at the same time. Exceptions to this rule are pages that are the root of their own category (i.e. pages that have the same name as their category). ::::Article 3. Every article and category should be in at least one category, except for Category:Campaigns Wikia, which is the root category. ::::Any complaints about those two? --ШΔLÐSΣИ 03:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC) :::::I don't see any reason that every article should be in a category, but I don't feel strongly about it. I could go along with that. Lou franklin 03:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC) ::::::Article 6. Placement of articles into categories should be based on facts and arguments presented in the article, and should not be used to express an opinion. ::::::For instance, an article containing arguments that something is or should become a civil right is a civil rights issue, and belongs in the Category:Civil rights, but the category should not be added as an argument for its status as such. ::::::OK, these need changing... Let's see: ::::::Article 6. Placement of articles into categories should be based exclusively on facts, and should not be used to express opinions under any circumstances. ::::::? --ШΔLÐSΣИ 03:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC) :::::::Good. I would even change "should not be used to express opinions" to "should not express opinions". Clearly "civil rights" expresses an opinion and should not. Lou franklin 03:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC) ::::::::Agreed... ::::::::Article 6. Placement of articles into categories should be based exclusively on facts. Categories should not express opinions under any circumstances. ::::::::--ШΔLÐSΣИ 03:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Now, 7: *'Article 7.' CatP does not dictate where such arguments belong or when it's appropriate to remove them, only that as long as these arguments are in the article, the category should be as well. I'm not really sure what this is trying to say, but I don't buy it. Gone? --ШΔLÐSΣИ 03:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC) :Gone. Lou franklin 03:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC) ::Article 4. More categories are generally better than fewer. An effort should be made to place articles in all applicable categories. ::I don't agree that more is generally better than fewer, but I do think that articles should be placed in as many categories as is reasonable. Do you agree? --ШΔLÐSΣИ 03:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC) :::I have no objection to that. Lou franklin 03:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC) ::::Article 9. Although some categories reflect POVs, all effort should be made to phrase the category names as neutrally as possible. ::::For instance, "Racial issues" is a better category name than "Racial discrimination". ::::I think this is OK. It's impossible to have 100% neutral categories. --ШΔLÐSΣИ 03:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC) ::::Article 9. Category names should be phrased as neutrally as possible. ::::Better? --ШΔLÐSΣИ 03:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC) :::::Much. :::::I've got to run. I'll take another look tomorrow. Thanks for your work in cleaning this policy up. Lou franklin 03:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC) ::::::OK. We'll continue some other time... --ШΔLÐSΣИ 03:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)